Some down ticket movement for me:
1. Mulcair
2. Ashton
3. Nash
4. Cullen
5. Topp
6. Dewar
I may vote Saganash on the first ballot if his name appears. Any word on that?
Who are u supporting for NDP Leader, how will u mark your ballot, and why? #5
Wed, 2012-02-22 09:14
#52
Wed, 2012-02-22 10:02
#53
Some down ticket movement for me:
1. Mulcair
2. Ashton
3. Nash
4. Cullen
5. Topp
6. DewarI may vote Saganash on the first ballot if his name appears. Any word on that?
I seriously doubt his name would appear. He withdrew from the race some time ago. Why would his name be on the ballot if he is not running?
Wed, 2012-02-22 10:28
#54
I seriously doubt his name would appear. He withdrew from the race some time ago. Why would his name be on the ballot if he is not running?
Ballots take a long time to print, and I honestly have no idea when the Party started the process. My guess is that his name won't appear but all the people I've asked don't know themselves.
Wed, 2012-02-22 11:32
#55
1.Cullen
2. Ashton
3. Mulcair
Because I care about the people residing in this country and then the rest of the world.
Wed, 2012-02-22 14:20
#56
I'm supporting Topp and Cullen, and that probably means I dont care about any of those things.
Wed, 2012-02-22 17:06
#57
I remain conflicted. Mulcair has more negatives than any of the other candidates, but I don't see anyone else that can do really well in Quebec and take on Harper as well as Mulcair can (and lead the NDP to a win in 2015). Talk about compromise!
Mulcair has many positives beyond beating Harper and keeping Quebec. Mulcair is honest, so while he may have flaws you at least know what they are now, so you know what your getting with him straight up.
You also get affordable housing, cap and trade, more money for infostructure, some willing to fight war rape, someone who believes in fair trade, universal healthcare, a fincial transaction tax, who believes in, Kairos, and so much more and you know he stands up for what he believes in, he's been tested in government. The rest are unknowns in government we really,don't know what,all thier flaws are, because they've never been on,government, although Topp has been sort of apart of Romanows government, still that mighy not be a fair comparesion to Topp as he didn't decide policy, Romanow and his cabinate did.
Wed, 2012-02-22 23:28
#58
I should say, that even though I'm inclined to support Mulcair or Topp, I don't have anything against the other candidates. They all seem like a fine people with their own sets of skills. I don't think it's "game over" if we end up with a leader who isn't Mulcair or Topp.
Wed, 2012-02-22 23:35
#59
Boom Boom
Well, that aside, Brachina, I'm more open to Topp now than before, with Cullen still as my second choice. I'll listen to the debates and follow the news cycle as best I can. I'm really disappointed that Mulcair can't seem to find the time to join us for some Q&A.
Thu, 2012-02-23 00:14
#60
Well, that aside, Brachina, I'm more open to Topp now than before, with Cullen still as my second choice. I'll listen to the debates and follow the news cycle as best I can. I'm really disappointed that Mulcair can't seem to find the time to join us for some Q&A.
Is that for sure?
Thu, 2012-02-23 00:17
#61
I seriously doubt his name would appear. He withdrew from the race some time ago. Why would his name be on the ballot if he is not running?
Ballots take a long time to print, and I honestly have no idea when the Party started the process. My guess is that his name won't appear but all the people I've asked don't know themselves.
Most people are voting online. I seriously doubt there will be ANY printed ballots. And the idea that ballots take a long time to print is pretty silly. You can probably get them printed in less than a day. Seriously, anyone with a $100 inkjet could print off ballots and there are huge numbers of professional printers who do printing every day, even in Canada.
Thu, 2012-02-23 00:20
#62
Boom Boom
Seriously, anyone with a $100 inkjet could print off ballots and there are huge numbers of professional printers who do printing every day, even in Canada.
(emphasis mine)
That made me laugh! 
Thu, 2012-02-23 00:43
#63
Well, that aside, Brachina, I'm more open to Topp now than before, with Cullen still as my second choice. I'll listen to the debates and follow the news cycle as best I can. I'm really disappointed that Mulcair can't seem to find the time to join us for some Q&A.
Is that for sure?
Yeah, I emailed and was told it wasn't going to happen.
Thu, 2012-02-23 00:50
#64
Let's be fair here. This is a discussion forum. That's it. It's not some official party site. And how many New Democrats are active in the NDP leadership threads?
There are close to 130,000 members across the country. Let's keep this and "ourselves" in perspective.
Thu, 2012-02-23 00:52
#65
Boom Boom
Same here, Josh. Can't find the time, but will let us know if anything changes.
Thu, 2012-02-23 01:22
#66
Well, that aside, Brachina, I'm more open to Topp now than before, with Cullen still as my second choice. I'll listen to the debates and follow the news cycle as best I can. I'm really disappointed that Mulcair can't seem to find the time to join us for some Q&A.
Is that for sure?
Yeah, I emailed and was told it wasn't going to happen.
Okay, that's too bad. Though Hunkey_Monkey is right, in the grand sheme of things, we don't amount to much. = (
Thu, 2012-02-23 01:48
#67
I seriously doubt his name would appear. He withdrew from the race some time ago. Why would his name be on the ballot if he is not running?
Ballots take a long time to print, and I honestly have no idea when the Party started the process. My guess is that his name won't appear but all the people I've asked don't know themselves.
Most people are voting online. I seriously doubt there will be ANY printed ballots. And the idea that ballots take a long time to print is pretty silly. You can probably get them printed in less than a day. Seriously, anyone with a $100 inkjet could print off ballots and there are huge numbers of professional printers who do printing every day, even in Canada.
I think there must be some provision for mail-in ballots.
Thu, 2012-02-23 01:49
#68
Victory for the NDP will not necessarily take us to the Promised Land. One just needs to remember Ontario.
Defeat certainly won't.
Thu, 2012-02-23 02:27
#69
Maybe I won't vote at all.
Thu, 2012-02-23 02:55
#70
Maybe I won't vote at all.
Negativity and squabbling in political arenas can sometimes lead to discouragement, and then even to not voting. Anyway, best thing to do is not worry about stuff, and just go with your gut and vote. It should be an exciting convention, and there's a lot of good choices from all across the country.
Thu, 2012-02-23 04:01
#71
Well, that aside, Brachina, I'm more open to Topp now than before, with Cullen still as my second choice. I'll listen to the debates and follow the news cycle as best I can. I'm really disappointed that Mulcair can't seem to find the time to join us for some Q&A.
Is that for sure?
Yeah, I emailed and was told it wasn't going to happen.
Okay, that's too bad. Though Hunkey_Monkey is right, in the grand sheme of things, we don't amount to much. = (
Or, rather than us not amounting to much, maybe instead it's that he does not want to jeopardize his lead by subjecting himself to a possible faux pas under our brilliant questioning, since he realizes our absolute awesomeness.
Thu, 2012-02-23 06:05
#72
In all sincerity, people have twisted his quotes to such absurd conclusions, I would see little point to answering questions here.
Thu, 2012-02-23 06:31
#73
I think it is fair to say that Brian Topp has been the most negative of the candidates. He has engaged in more negative attacks on his opponents than all of them combined. Nash is inexperienced and has only sat in parliament a couple years. Dewar's French makes him unacceptable. Even Saganash was said not to speak acceptable French. Mulcair... well the litany is too long and familiar to get into here.
His telephone cnvassers also dwell on the negative.Several examples of this have been aired on Babble. I understand from two sources that his written talking points for his canvassers includes a series of negative statements against each of his opponents. If you say you are inclined towards Nash, for example, the canvassser will read out that she is lacking in experience, etc.
One of the things I applaud Brian Topp for is identifying "vote suppression" as a tool which the Conservatives have appropriated from the US Republicans. Negative campaigning he says correctly does two things:
1. It solidifies and energizes your base.
2. It discourages supporters of the opponent from even voting.
It is ironic that Mr Topp seems to be engaged in similar tatics in the leadershio race. I was puzzeled about his negative tactics since they seem to irritate many people. But I think there is an explanation. Topp understands "vote suppression" and is using it here. By saying Mulcair will turn the party to the right he is not simply encouraging a voter tending towards Mulcair to vote for him, he is also encouraging him not to vote at all.
The membership numbers, particulary in BC and Ontario, might also back up that interpretation. It has been speculated that the "Gerry Scott machine" in BC has signed up many new members for Topp. Perhaps the Ontario numbers reflect a similar effort on his behalf by some unions. Topp may be banking on expanding his vote with new recruits and suppressing his rivals' support among existing members.
I suspect the new membership numbers may mean that Topp is actually running significantly ahead of where he was in the two polls. Those polls would necessarly have sampled an outdated membership list.
Thu, 2012-02-23 06:41
#74
Mark_Alfred writes
"Or, rather than us not amounting to much, maybe instead it's that he does not want to jeopardize his lead by subjecting himself to a possible faux pas under our brilliant questioning, since he realizes our absolute awesomeness."
If you hve been to any of Mulcair's events, you will know that his usual format is a 15 to 20 minute speech followed by taking questions for 45 minutes to an hour. The questions are not vetted and anyone can ask them. One of the things that attracted me to Mulcair in the first place is tha , unlike most politicians (and perhaps one or two in this race) is that he actually answers the questions and does not just rattle off some potted talking points.
Anyone can ask him the questions that you and others unfairly suggest he is avoiding.
I read on the other thread that the moderators have invited him on to Babble and have not yet heard back from him. I do not see where he has declined to participate.
There is no more reason to say he is avoiding questions here that there is to say he avoids questions at his own events. That is just not true.
Thu, 2012-02-23 08:26
#75
I think there must be some provision for mail-in ballots.
There is. A physicial ballot will be mailed to every member allowing them the option of mailing it in rather than use the online service, especially necessary since apparently there is no telephone option (except on convention day?) this time unlike the B.C. race.
Thu, 2012-02-23 08:26
#76
Victory for the NDP will not necessarily take us to the Promised Land. One just needs to remember Ontario.
Defeat certainly won't.
I wouldn't stress too much about the NDP experience in Ontario. After all, it merely proved that if you put a Liberal in charge of anything, including the Ontario NDP, s/he will screw it up.
Thu, 2012-02-23 09:17
#77
Does anyone know if Mulcair has ever apologized to Davies for his comments? If he did, that would remove one of the taints in my opinion.
Thu, 2012-02-23 10:35
#78
Can't find the time, but will let us know if anything changes.
Yes, because answering questions on a computer for one hour is just too time consuming.
Thu, 2012-02-23 11:18
#79
Does anyone know if Mulcair has ever apologized to Davies for his comments? If he did, that would remove one of the taints in my opinion.
I'm not sure I get it. Wasn't the taint removed once Libby apologized, and Layton accepted it?
Thu, 2012-02-23 11:51
#80
LMFAOROTFL
Thu, 2012-02-23 12:30
#81
1) Mulcair - He is the most Prime Ministerial, best performer, experienced and, in my view, quite progressive on a number of issues if you read passed the smears.
2) Cullen - He is also a good performer, very intelligent, saavy and has years of experience.
3) Nash - She has remained positive and dignified throughout the race, she is well-spoken and experienced.
I believe these will be my only choices. I may make Nikki #4, but not likely.
Best wishes to all.
Thu, 2012-02-23 12:31
#82
[Frpm Mulcair] You also get affordable housing, cap and trade, more money for infostructure, some willing to fight war rape, someone who believes in fair trade, universal healthcare, a fincial transaction tax.....
We dont GET any of those things if Mulcair [or to be fair, anyone else] is Leader. We dont even necessarily get a fulsome commitment and political capability to do the most possible to ensure that we get them, or that we win government so we can get them.
What we get is Mulcair talks about them, says he likes this and that.
Thu, 2012-02-23 12:45
#83
I'm not sure I get it. Wasn't the taint removed once Libby apologized, and Layton accepted it?
Not expressing an opinion on whether there should have been an apology from Mulcair, just explaining:
The issue is the opinion that whatever Libby did, Mulcair's attack on her was more than uncalled for, and she should be getting an apology from him.
My point at the time, and still, is that Mulcair publicly apologizing would undo the political damage control of Libby's apolgy, so it will not happen. We dont know whether he apologized to her himself. [I wouldnt guess yes or no- there is sufficient reason to guess either.] That said, there is nothing to stop him from doing a mea culpa now. And it would obviously calm the waters.
And please, lets not replay 'he was just correcting her', etc. No such thing, he did not 'just' correct her. And we have a critic or the Leader for doing that- and I'm sure one or both would have handled it had Mulcair not gone ballistic first. [And talk about giving the issue legs....]
Thu, 2012-02-23 13:18
#84
No argument form me there: Mulcair was grandstanding, and not merely correcting her. But then you understand the dynamics at play: Libby apologized, Jack accepted it. And to apologize to her afterwards would do worse than re-open the issue. I'm actually really curious if Mulcair and Davies have put the incident behind him. I do think some kind of peace offering, short of an apology, would be a good idea. In the event that Mulcair does become leader, I hope she still plays an important role. It would be hard to stomach something other than deputy leader, but since these shakeups happen all the time, we can only hope she gets a role that she cares about and can be effective.
Thu, 2012-02-23 13:31
#85
Is there somewhere that I can look see what Mulcair did to Libby that requires an apology? I don't know nothing about it and my only source outside of here is biased.
Thu, 2012-02-23 13:34
#86
I think it is fair to say that Brian Topp has been the most negative of the candidates.
Conservative "vote suppression"? By Topp? Generally I find that most of his campaign, even when contrasting himself with other candidates, has been centred on experience, ability, and primarily policy (IE, see his post here on cap and trade), whereas Conservatives will try to remove one from policy and focus on character slurs and negativity. One thing I rarely see from a lot of Mulcair supporters here is statements about policy differences. Generally it's stuff about character (other candidates not being saleable, conspiracies about posters being hired staff of campaigns, allegedly evil tactics of other candidates, etc.). I'm learning to ignore such negativity, however. Best to be positive and focus on the issues.
Thu, 2012-02-23 13:46
#87
Maybe I won't vote at all.
Negativity and squabbling in political arenas can sometimes lead to discouragement, and then even to not voting. Anyway, best thing to do is not worry about stuff, and just go with your gut and vote. It should be an exciting convention, and there's a lot of good choices from all across the country.
Fair points. Guess I was just feeling a little down at the time.
Thu, 2012-02-23 13:49
#88
Is there somewhere that I can look see what Mulcair did to Libby that requires an apology? I don't know nothing about it and my only source outside of here is biased.
First a disclaimer: I know nothing personally about the situation and have no opinion on it.
I did a search via http://duckduckgo.com/ (highly recommended if you're leery of being catalogued by big-brother Google), and found the following article on Rabble.
Thu, 2012-02-23 14:19
#89
I dont know if anyone can do better than you googling it.
I really think this is a fair assessment, and I defended Mulcair at the time here:
I did not defnd what he said. It was worse than excessive. It was tearing a strip off a colleague. It alo also not the way to go about Libby backing up and making the issue go away, which is what the NDP including Libby wants [but babblers did not want]. Mulcair was unhelpful in every way.
I think its also fair to say that had it not been for the political pragmatics, Mulcair's attack might have normally been occasion for at least some mild words of disapproval from Jack. Although even without the issue pragmatics making that practically impossible, I'm not sure that there is a diplomatic way for the Leader of the party to diplomatically criticise the House Leader in public.
Those really have to be in-house Caucus dynamics. And we do not know what was said, how much was said, what it covered.... any of that. Even internally, its possible Jack mostly papered over the eruption of differences. Some people know. But I doubt that includes any babblers.
Thu, 2012-02-23 14:21
#90
I think it is fair to say that Brian Topp has been the most negative of the candidates.
Conservative "vote suppression"? By Topp? Generally I find that most of his campaign, even when contrasting himself with other candidates, has been centred on experience, ability, and primarily policy (IE, see his post here on cap and trade), whereas Conservatives will try to remove one from policy and focus on character slurs and negativity. One thing I rarely see from a lot of Mulcair supporters here is statements about policy differences. Generally it's stuff about character (other candidates not being saleable, conspiracies about posters being hired staff of campaigns, allegedly evil tactics of other candidates, etc.). I'm learning to ignore such negativity, however. Best to be positive and focus on the issues.
I'm a Mulcair supporter and I'd say that maybe half of my posts have been about policy (or strategy), including ones attacking Mulcair's policies. Would you care to claim otherwise?
Thu, 2012-02-23 14:32
#91
I believe these will be my only choices.
In the unlikely event that Dewar and Topp are in the last round, do you really have no preference?
My point is, in a preferential ballot of seven candidates, there is nothing to be gained by ranking any fewer than seven (or six which amounts to the same thing.)
. . . found the following article on Rabble.
Murray Dobbin is far from a dispassionate observer on this issue, although I agree with him 85% of the time. Could we please move on? Neither Libby nor any of the other players are talking about this, why should we?
Thu, 2012-02-23 14:38
#92
I think it is fair to say that Brian Topp has been the most negative of the candidates.
Conservative "vote suppression"? By Topp? Generally I find that most of his campaign, even when contrasting himself with other candidates, has been centred on experience, ability, and primarily policy (IE, see his post here on cap and trade), whereas Conservatives will try to remove one from policy and focus on character slurs and negativity. One thing I rarely see from a lot of Mulcair supporters here is statements about policy differences. Generally it's stuff about character (other candidates not being saleable, conspiracies about posters being hired staff of campaigns, allegedly evil tactics of other candidates, etc.). I'm learning to ignore such negativity, however. Best to be positive and focus on the issues.
I'm a Mulcair supporter and I'd say that maybe half of my posts have been about policy (or strategy), including ones attacking Mulcair's policies. Would you care to claim otherwise?
Nope. I'd rather just stick to the issues (policy, strategy, links to information, etc.). Also, might be good for us to stop cluttering up this thread with off-topic posts which should be in the leaderships threads and not in the "how ya gonna mark your ballot" threads.
Thu, 2012-02-23 14:54
#93
Currently feeling so disenchanted I may cast a protest ballot for Rosemary Brown.
Thu, 2012-02-23 15:05
#94
Boom Boom
If I wasn't voting for Mulcair - then I'd be voting for Cullen or Topp - but my first choice, 'from the heart', is definitely Cullen, I just really like the guy.
Thu, 2012-02-23 15:35
#95
. . . found the following article on Rabble.Murray Dobbin is far from a dispassionate observer on this issue, although I agree with him 85% of the time. Could we please move on? Neither Libby nor any of the other players are talking about this, why should we?
They don't have to talk about it but this is among the reasons why so few of the pre- May 2011 caucus have endorsed Mulcair as leader. Mulcair's caucus endorsements are overwhelmingly from new Quebec MPs who in many cases are perceived as beholden to Mulcair for their election as NDP MPs in Quebec. The new Quebec MPs weren't around to see how this prior inter-necine battle went down.
Mulcair has alienated some players/factions in the NDP and combined with provincial, regional and sectoral loyalties the leadership is by no means in the bag. March 24 will be a battle not a coronation.
Thu, 2012-02-23 15:42
#96
I may have to take a break from the information here at Babble. While this race has been pretty tame compared to other comparable races of other parties, for the NDP (and my own personal sensibilities) it's been a wild knock-down drama of intrigue!! I'll be glad to be at the convention to find out who finally wins this long race.
Well said, I'm feeling the same way. Objectively this is a pretty tame race but the anxiety is ratcheted up because I actually care about the outcome. I'm watching that Republican farce south of the border to relax.
Thu, 2012-02-23 15:43
#97
Boom Boom
I don't think anyone wants a coronation, just a lot of drama and nail-biting intrigue. Keeps us interested - and awake!
Thu, 2012-02-23 15:45
#98
I don't think anyone wants a coronation, just a lot of drama and nail-biting intrigue. Keeps us interested - and awake!
Hehe, I agree. Who wants a snooze-fest. :)
Thu, 2012-02-23 15:50
#99
have to talk about it but this is among the reasons why so few of the pre- May 2011 caucus have endorsed Mulcair as leader.
Mulcair is tied for first with Dewar for endorsements in caucus elected before last May. They each have 5 including themselves.
Thu, 2012-02-23 15:53
#100
Mine are:
- Topp
- Nash
- Cullen
- Mulcair
[later edit] I had revised my position, but a new whim struck me, so I'm back to where I was.[/later edit]
I may have to take a break from the information here at Babble. While this race has been pretty tame compared to other comparable races of other parties, for the NDP (and my own personal sensibilities) it's been a wild knock-down drama of intrigue!! I'll be glad to be at the convention to find out who finally wins this long race.
Fri, 2012-02-24 06:46
#101
Well said, I'm feeling the same way. Objectively this is a pretty tame race but the anxiety is ratcheted up because I actually care about the outcome. I'm watching that Republican farce south of the border to relax.
So we have agreement all around on that one. I'm not just watching the farce to the south, I'm HERE, in Michigan, days away from the primary, and its wall to wall Santorum and Romney attack ads. Seeing slash and burn in action makes you realize that there aren't any blows that will last in our race.
And when its all over, and inevitably someone(s) of the contenders steps back.... remember that that is an inevitable and understandable consequence that at least some of the time its very tough for big egos not to win.... even when everyone played nice. It happens.